Time running out for Montana legislators to override pot tax veto

The clock is ticking for Montana legislators to decide if they will vote to override Gov. Greg Gianforte’s veto last year of Senate Bill 442.

Only a few days remain before legislators must submit their mail poll by 5 p.m. Thursday, April 18.

Many rural counties and communities would benefit substantially if the override goes through, meaning more money for road work.

According to reporting by the Daily Montanan, an analysis by the state Legislative Services Division determined Montana counties would receive $16.6 annually for county roads. Research by Erin Sullivan, who is also the lead staffer for the Economic Affairs Interim Committee, indicated Lincoln County would be in line to receive $368,000 for road work.

Advocates for the marijuana tax touted the many benefits it would provide, including money for county road maintenance, behavioral health and treatment programs, wildlife habitat and conservation efforts and state parks, trails and recreational facilities.

But Gianforte had sought more money for law enforcement and the general fund. Lawmakers saw it differently and overwhelmingly approved an amended version with 131 votes for and 19 against.

Now, to override the Gianforte’s veto, 100 legislators must vote for it.

The opportunity arose after Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Mike Menahan ruled earlier this year that Gianforte must transmit his veto to Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen and she must poll lawmakers to see if they wish to override the veto.

The Montana Supreme Court backed Menahan’s ruling recently.

Two Lincoln County legislators, Senate District 1’s Mike Cuffe and House District 1’s Steve Gunderson, are concerned that the court’s decision subverts the legislative process.

“It’s a strange, fouled up deal,” Cuffe said in an interview with The Western News. “I believe it’s a violation of the separation of powers and I don’t think it’s valid.”

Cuffe also said in an email to The Western News that, “The proper way forward now is to bring it to a special session, or to draft a similar bill in January 2025, when the next session begins.”

Cuffe and Gunderson each voted for Senate Bill 442 as it went through the legislative process.

Gunderson, in an email to The Western News, said he was torn on the veto override for the bill.

“Yes, I voted for SB 442 throughout the legislative process as the bill passed through the House. I voted for what I felt was a mildly imperfect bill that was passed by the Legislature but vetoed by the Governor in the waning hours of the Legislature,” Gunderson wrote. “This bill can, and should be, reintroduced and/or amended by future legislative action if it fails the veto override vote.

“The forced veto override by the Supreme Court proves that the legislative process has been subverted. There is a separation of powers for a reason,” Gunderson wrote. “The Legislature writes the laws. I feel there is an egregious overreach by the judicial branch in attempting to legislate from the bench and interpret our Legislative rules for us and how we follow them. In the past the Supreme Court ordered the Legislature to disregard the Judiciary’s powers concerning for one, the retention of public records, specifically judicial emails. Just as the Supreme Court has found a large number of the election bills we passed “unconstitutional,” I find it difficult to allow the Judicial branch the ability to tell the Legislature to overlook its rules and force a veto override vote on a bill that died in process.”

Gunderson said in his four-term tenure representing HD1, many of his bills have died in process. 

“My bills didn’t get a second chance. As my bills that died in process are required to be rewritten and brought to a future session, so should SB 442.”

Gunderson said he received about six “canned” emails from local constituents asking him to vote for the override of SB 442 which does not hold much sway in deciding how to vote. 

“I have not received any messages directly from the Lincoln County Commissioners asking for my vote. The only article in the local media is from MACO which is a lobby group,” Gunderson wrote. “I’m very disappointed in MACO and the story they weave about anyone voting against the veto override is against their perspective county. The media seems to be backing the Supreme Court and its egregious interpretation of our Montana Constitution.”

But with the county’s road fund down to about $5.5 million, commissioners have said any new money coming in for road work would be welcome.

“$368,000 would be substantial for our road department,” District 1 commissioner Brent Teske said. “If they head to a special session, that’s fine, but we’re in limbo, waiting on a decision.”

District 3 commissioner Josh Letcher agreed, saying, “It doesn’t help us in the meantime while we wait.”

The commissioners did vote to sign a letter from MACO advocating for legislators to vote in accordance with the needs of the constituents, as SB 442 state marijuana tax, in their view, is good policy for Montana.

In a document from MACO titled, “A Letter to the Citizens of Montana,” it shared that the veto letter stated, “SB 442 would create a slippery slope by utilizing state funds for local infrastructure. However, Montanans have always benefited from state resources provided to local governments for assisting with bridges, the secondary road system and access to recreational sites to name a few.”

The letter also opined, “The court order is clear. Judge Menahan stated, “At this time, the Senate voted to adjourn, few if any legislators were aware of the governor’s veto. Following adjournment and a request from the bill sponsor, Jacobsen refused to initiate the post session override procedure, claiming she had not received a copy of the governor’s veto and a statement explaining his reasons for doing so. The legislature was thus deprived of an opportunity to override the veto of Senate Bill 442 and draft the policy contained therein into law.”